So you think we don't torture anymore? Think the "reasonable" man in the White House knew it was wrong, counterproductive, and, oh yeah, a war crime, so he put a stop to it? Time to wipe the crusties from your eyes, kids.
First we have the Obama DOJ defending the Cheney positions on torture:
From the Washington Independent:
...when it comes to those tortured during the Bush administration, the Obama administration refuses to say that Bush officials violated existing law. In fact, in litigation over the torture and abuse of detainees that in some cases may have resulted in their deaths, the Obama administration has surprisingly endorsed the same legal positions as its predecessor, insisting that there is no constitutional right to humane treatment by U.S. authorities outside the United States, and that victims of torture and abuse and their survivors have no right to compensation or even an acknowledgment of what occurred.
Defending torturers. Defending torture policies. No right to humane treatment. No acknowledgment of torture. Don't worry, it gets worse:
The Obama administration is insisting, however, that Congress had the power to eliminate judicial review... It also argues that the Defense Department officials are immune from suit, because, as the Bush Justice Department argued in previous cases, it wasn’t clear at the time that detainees had a right NOT to be tortured by U.S. officials at Guantanamo. They therefore have "qualified immunity" from suit.
But the Justice Department GOES FURTHER THAN THAT. Under President Obama, the government is arguing not only that it wasn’t clear what rights detainees were entitled to back in 2006, but that EVEN TODAY the prisoners have NO RIGHT to such basic constitutional protections as DUE PROCESS of law or the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The "Fifth and Eighth Amendments DO NOT EXTEND to Guantánamo Bay detainees," writes the Justice Department in its brief.
And, the government argues, the courts should not imply a right to sue under the Constitution, in part because that could lead to "embarrassment of our government abroad."
...
As Richard Seamon, a professor at the Idaho School of Law who has written extensively about torture lawsuits notes in a recent article posted on JURIST, federal officials in such cases may be granted qualified immunity "because of the paucity of case law clearly establishing the unconstitutionality of the use of torture in the war on terrorism and high-level executive-branch actions seemingly endorsing the torture, such as the Department of Justice’s infamous ‘torture memo.’"
Then again, as Lewis put it: "I would argue that when you’re the secretary of defense, you don’t need special notice to know it’s wrong to torture people."
According to the Justice Department’s latest briefs filed in the Al-Zahrani case, however, the Obama administration DOES NOT AGREE.
Emphasis mine.
Perhaps Obama could get some advice from Professor Yoo or Judge Bybee especially considering that -
Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the "torture" memos of professional-misconduct allegations.
Combine that with the continued beatings at GITMO, according to Jeremy Scahill, along with the refusal to release photos.
Now yesterday, we get Gibbs refusing to comment on torture.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wouldn't say what, if anything, the White House was doing to prevent the torture of a Taliban leader reportedly captured in Pakistan.
Nor would he even discuss if there was a policy to ensure that foreign agencies don't utilize waterboarding or other torture techniques against alleged terrorist detainees.
At least not in front of the cameras.
Why? It seems so clear when Obama says no torture, doesn't it? Why not just a simple "No torture"?